Forum:Standardising "year" articles
category:calendar Please - everybody - look at least once at Genealogy:Year page contents/model, then at 1966 to see it in action. Before I copy that to hundreds of pages, I'd like input from all of you on what else would be worth including as a standard link or heading and what (if anything) shouldn't be there. Comments below, please (because subpage-talk-pages are a bit hard to find and work with). Robin Patterson 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Now refined a bit (having seen in practice a few serious flaws!) and drafted similar model for categories. Robin Patterson 05:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Comments and suggestions I looked this over a bit. There's a heading labeled " Events of relevance to genealogy " I'm not sure what that's intended to ecompass. I don't really think this is intended as a listing of things relevant to genealogy per se. What would that be? Things like, "publication of the first Family History", publication of the BCG "Standards of Proof"? Probably not what was intended. What I think was meant was a list of historical events that would have relevance for people's lives, with implications for family history. For example, the Norman Conquest in 1066, the founding of Jamestown, Va, or the Fall of the Sung Dynasty, etc. Or is this meant to capture things like DOB's, as in "1767 Birth of John Smith (1767-1842)" Bill 12:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC) :Thanks for responding. Answer: Your first two groups, tending towards the second. Not anyone's birth unless very important. I should probably have repeated here what I said on the model page: "Then see 1967 for an idea of the sorts of events that may be worth recording." Other years could have things like census and start of BDM registration somewhere. Robin Patterson 13:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Time to move further ahead? Bill is no longer very active here, though still on the "Top users" panel. Several newer arrivals are doing lots of work that involves year pages, directly or indirectly. I would like a few more paragraphs of input before moving further. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :Hi Robin, thought I'd just stick my 2 cents in (above), as I do on occassion. While I'm focusing elsewhere, Genealogy wiki still occupies a fond place in my heart. There are some definite advantages of working here, though some disadvantages as well. :In anycase the above is a nice idea at least from a technical (very clever) perspective. Its not a need I would have thought of filling, but clearly has its uses. I presume this is more or less automatic, once the pages have been created on this site. Why not move forward with it and see how it works out. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Bill Willis 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :On another matter, somewhere or other there was a suggestion for marking pages with a sort of "completeness, meets minimum page requirements" stamp. Ie, making sure every page had a vita box of some description, followed other article conventions, etc. Its something I'd once considered but didn't want to get into criticizing others work. (small gain, much pain). But I liked the idea of having a set of agreed upon criteria that each article should meet. That makes it very objective, and less critical sounding. I think if folks want to do that, it would be a very worthwhile effort. By the way, I do like the appearance of some of the Vita boxes that other's have put on their pages---the ones using WikiTable, rather than old fashioned HTML formating. They have a nice crisp look to them, and complement Wikipedia nicely. That's probably the style that should be encouraged. Bill Willis 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)